Author
Topic: Will Canon be making a 16-35 f/2.8 IS anytime soon? (Read 7247 times)

crasher8

1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?

1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?

If you were to track the 16-35 f/2.8II price since launch, you'll see that it dropped a LOT. Historically, I'd regard $1400 as a great buy for this lens. Agreed, the 17-40 f/4 is seriously good value at $699, and it will match the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8II once past f/5.6. If it's important for your shooting style to have the option of shooting commercial quality files at f/2.8, then the 16-35 f/2.8II will be your UWA zoom of choice.

Back on topic, I don't think the 16-35 lens needs IS. It's already bulky in the weight and size department and IS would necessitate a chunky price hike. Personally I shoot with the 17-40 f/4 as my UWA work generally needs f/8-f/11. Any update on the 16-35 should be directed at the difficult to solve IQ issues.

The lens that will grab my attention is the 14-24 f/2.8, Canon's current daydream special.

I just ordered the 16-35II on Amazon for $1300. I figured there's no point in waiting for a rumored lens. I hope it performs better than what most people are saying about it. I tested both the 17-40 and the 16-35 at a local rental shop. The 16-35 had sharper edges at f11 than the 17-40. It's not as sharp as 24-70II but sharp enough.

It would be nice to have either 14-24 f2.8 IS or 16-35 f2.8 IS.....IS can be really useful for night time landscape.

Personally, I prefer being able to use filters rather than having IS for UWA lens. Canon patent for the 14-24 design doesn't look like filter is possible. I also hope Canon creates something like a 12-20mm non-fisheye lens design.

1400 USD for 'competent' is a tough pill to swallow. I think the 17-40 is priced right.(699)You get what you pay for with that one but as for the 16-35, the one stop in light and not very much and according to others, no better in the corners for twice as much?

If you were to track the 16-35 f/2.8II price since launch, you'll see that it dropped a LOT. Historically, I'd regard $1400 as a great buy for this lens. Agreed, the 17-40 f/4 is seriously good value at $699, and it will match the IQ of the 16-35 f/2.8II once past f/5.6. If it's important for your shooting style to have the option of shooting commercial quality files at f/2.8, then the 16-35 f/2.8II will be your UWA zoom of choice.

Back on topic, I don't think the 16-35 lens needs IS. It's already bulky in the weight and size department and IS would necessitate a chunky price hike. Personally I shoot with the 17-40 f/4 as my UWA work generally needs f/8-f/11. Any update on the 16-35 should be directed at the difficult to solve IQ issues.

The lens that will grab my attention is the 14-24 f/2.8, Canon's current daydream special.

-PW

I personally feel the 16-35 II is significantly better than the 17-40 the extra stop is big if you use it